THE GOVERNMENT OF EARLY LONDON
The kynges chambre of custom men this calle.--LYDGATE.
_The Kings Peace._--When Alfred took over London it must have been in the
main a decayed Roman city. In giving the great burh into the hands of the
Mercian Ealdorman, Ethered, he was but restoring its capital to Mercia,
but he must also, and mainly, have had in view the need for providing
means of defence to the frontier fortress of the March country. Even so,
alongside of a supreme military rule a more domestic organisation of a
customary nature must have been carried on or reintroduced. It is probable
that this, following the shire model, was constituted with hundreds or
wards; the people met in wardmote and folkmote, and the king was
represented by a Sheriff or Portreeve. London, however, was and remained
pre-eminently a royal burh, and must have shared in all the
characteristics of the burhs, drawing on certain shires for upholding its
defences, having a Witan, coining money, having special privileges as to
residence, gilds, and markets, and being subject to the King's Peace. As
to the contributions for defence, Dr. Maitland, as we have seen on p. 105,
says, "There were shires or districts which from of old owed work of this
kind to Londonbury."[204] Regarding the King's Peace, it was provided by
the laws that every crime committed, in a street which ran right through
the city and likewise without the walls for a distance of over a league,
was a crime against the king. In London the man who was guilty had to pay
the king's burh-bryce of five pounds. The burh was to be sacred from
private quarrels--"the King's house-peace prevails in the streets."[205]
Some such fact as this is probably the origin of that almost mythical
phrase applied to the city by Lydgate and earlier writers--"the king's
chamber of London." It is to this aspect as the great model burh that the
Saxon laws of London printed by Thorpe refer.
There must have been a Burh Witan meeting periodically. A Crediton charter
of 1018 was made known to the Witans of Exeter, Barnstaple, Lidford, and
Totness, _i.e._ the Devonshire burhs. The Witan was thus a court of record
or witness. Probably the Hustings court is a form of the same assembly.
* * * * *
_Portreeves._--Fabyan says that at the coming of William the Conqueror and
before, the rulers of the city were named Portgreves. "These of old time,
with the laws and customs then used within the city, were registered in a
book called Domysday in Saxon tongue then used, but of later days when the
said laws and customs altered and changed and for consideration that the
said book was of small hand and sore defaced and hard to be read or
understood, it was the less set by, so that it was embezzled or lost, so
that the remembrance of such rulers as were before the days of Richard the
First (_i.e._ the institution of the mayoralty) were lost and forgotten."
The office of Portreeve probably goes back nearly to the first settlement
of the English. Bishop Stubbs, speaking generally of town organisation,
says, "The presiding magistrate was the gerefa." The king's wic-gerefa in
Lundonwic is mentioned in the Saxon Laws of _c._ 685 (Thorpe).[206] The
charter of the Conqueror ran, "I, King William, greet William the Bishop
and Gosfregth the Portreeve," and two of the Confessor's charters were
addressed to bishop and portreeve. In the _Judicia Civitatis Londoniæ_ of
Athelstane a reference is found to "the bishops and gereves that to London
borough belong." Norton says that these Laws show that in Athelstane's
time the bishops and reeves were the chief magistrates of London, and they
likewise presided at county courts with a jurisdiction precisely similar.
This conjunction of the spiritual and temporal powers probably explains
why it is that St. Paul's has always been linked in such a special way to
the Guildhall. At St. Paul's was kept the city banner, grants of money
from city funds are made for its repair, and the mayor is a trustee of the
church. This dual control seems to bear the mark of Alfred's thought. The
Portreeve certainly represented the king, and was responsible for the farm
of the city. In the _Blickling Homilies_ Agrippa is called Nero's
Burhgerefa. It would seem as if the bishop represented the collective
citizens. Mr. Round has recently shown that the Portreeve disappeared in
the Sheriff or Vicecomes of London and Middlesex. The Waltham Chronicle
says that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey de Mandeville in the shoes of
Esegar the Staller, and Mr. Round conjectures that this Geoffrey is the
actual "Gosfregth Portirefan" to whom the Conqueror's charter was
addressed. He also points out how the Sheriff had the custody of the
Tower; and in this we may find a further suggestion as to the probability
of a connection between the Portsoken of the Cnihten Gild, the Portreeve,
and the pre-Conquest citadel. Mr. Round seems not to have known that his
suppositions were all taken for granted by Stow, who calls the Portreeve
of the Conqueror's charter Godfrey, and then writes, "In the reign of the
said Conqueror, Godfrey de Magnaville was Portgrave (or Sheriff); ...
these Portgraves (after the Conquest) are also called Vicecounties or
Sheriffs." Mr. Round shows that the Sheriff, and by inference the
Portreeve, represented London and Middlesex taken together. "The city of
London was never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can
trace them they are one and indivisible."[207] The author just quoted
accounts for this distinction between London and other county towns by the
relative importance of London; but I cannot think, as before suggested,
that Middlesex was not specially dependant on London, and probably
Ethered's authority as commandant of the great burh extended over
Middlesex. The acquisition of the farm of the county by the city may be an
echo of this.
Stow gave a list of the Portreeves from the time of the Conquest. In the
additional matter printed by Hearne in his edition of William of Newbury
is given, from a register of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, what must be another
copy of Stow's authority for the early sheriffs for which he cited a book
"sometime belonging to St. Albans." Both may come from the old book called
"_Domysday_," by Fabyan. In the list given by Hearne the names are much
less corrupt than in Stow's list; and as it ends with the year 1222 it
must have been an early document. The Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs
gives still another list from the first year of Richard onward, and so
far as they overlap, the three can be compared.[208]
According to Hearne's list the principal governor of the citizens of
London in the days of the Confessor was Wulfgar, called _Portshyreve_. In
the reign of William Rufus, Geoffrey de Magnaville was _vicecomes_ and R.
del Parc _præpositus_. In the time of Henry I. came Hugo de Boch'
[Bochland], v., and Leofstan, p. Albericus de Ver, v., and Robertus de
Berquereola, p., followed.
In the reign of Stephen we have the names of Gilbertus Beket, v., and
Andreas Buchuint, p. Under Henry II. Petrus filius Walteri was vicecomes,
then Johannes filius Nigelli, then Ernulfus Buchel, then Willelmus filius
Isabellæ, the last of whom was buried in Holy Trinity Church, Aldgate.
Richard I. was crowned September 1189. In his days first began to be two
vicecomites at the same time, who were usually chosen 21st September. In
his first year they were Henricus Cornhill and Ricardus filius Reneri.
The Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs begins with these same two names
of what it calls the "first sheriffs of London, in the first year of the
reign of King Richard." It, however, places this in 1188; then follow
other pairs of names as in Stow, but all a year earlier, till 1206, when
Serlo le Mercer and Henry de Saint Auban are interpolated, probably by
mistake, unless they merely occupied the position for the portion of a
year.
From the Pipe Rolls and St. Paul's documents many more facts as to the
sheriffs can be gathered, and Mr. Round's article on the "Early
Administration of London," in his _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, must be taken
as the starting-point for any complete inquiry.
* * * * *
_The first Mayor._--The institution of the mayoralty is put in the year
1188 by the Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs. In Hearne's list, under
1208, is entered Henry son of Alwin son of Leofstan, first of the mayors
of London, who were chosen St. Edward's day (13th October).
Stow agrees with the chronicle, and puts the institution of the mayoralty
in the first year of Richard I.; but under 1208 we find an echo of the
version as printed by Hearne, for Stow makes King John, in this year,
grant the citizens a patent "to chuse to themselves a mayor." Be the
explanation of this what it may, contemporary documents show that
Fitzalwin was already known as mayor in 1193; he probably took up the
office in 1191.
Stow tells us that the first mayor was Henry Fitzalwin Fitzleofstan of
London Stone, and there is ample confirmation that his father was called
Alwin. That his grandfather was Leofstan, Stow must have learnt from the
list of sheriffs as in the copy printed by Hearne.
There is some confusion between many Leofstans and Alwins, one of whom
signs as moneyer the coins of Henry II. about 1160--ALWIN ON LUND. Mr.
Round has shown that in 1165 a Henry Fitzailwin Fitzleofstan with Alan his
brother were landholders, apparently in Essex.[209] Stow says that
Leofstan was a goldsmith; but here he may be confusing another Leofstan,
as this fact does not seem to have been given in the list of sheriffs.
Munday contradicted Stow as to Mayor Henry's grave being at Holy Trinity,
and says he was buried at St. Mary Bothaw, and not as "avowed by Mr.
Stow." Stow's authority, however, must have been this same list of
sheriffs, for that notes that "he was buried at the entrance to the
chapter of the Church of Holy Trinity, under a marble slab." Mr. Round has
done much to clear up the history of our first mayor in the _Dictionary of
National Biography_, the _Archæological Journal_, and his _Commune of
London_; but every detail is valuable of the head of the City Republic of
whom the citizens said, "Come what will, in London we will never have
another king except our mayor, Henry Fitailwin of London Stone."[210]
Henry was mayor for nearly twenty years, and was followed in 1212 by Roger
Fitz Alan--can he have been Henry's nephew?
* * * * *
_Hustings._--This court is mentioned in the charter of Henry I., and in a
passage in the so-called Laws of the Confessor the Hustings Court is said
to have been founded of old in imitation of and to continue the royal
customs of Great Troy. FitzStephen also repeats the legend that the laws
of the city were derived from the Trojans, and the passage from the Laws
of the Confessor was copied into the _Liber Albus_. It was suggested
nearly three centuries since by Munday, that "Troy weight" is the ancient
standard weight of London, and carries on the legend of Brutus to this
day; but this is not borne out by the facts, although it is frequently
reasserted, as in Brewer's _Phrase and Fable_. Munday says, "The weight
used for gold and silver called Troy weight was in the time of the Saxons
called 'the Hustings weight of London,' and kept there in the Hustings. So
an ancient record in the Book of Ramsey (sect. 32, 127): 'I Æthelgiva
Countess, etc., bequeath two silver cups of twelve marks of the Hustings
weight of London.'"[211] This is interesting as an early notice of the
Hustings Court, which is thought by some to have originated under the
Danish rule; but the word "Thing" occurs in one of the earliest English
laws. It was a Court of Record; the best account of it is given by Dr.
Sharpe in his _Calendar of Wills_.
The Court of Hustings was not, it appears, necessarily associated with the
Guildhall. A Ramsey Charter of 1114-30 speaks of a purchase of a house
being completed "in the presence of the whole Court of Hustings of London
in the house of Alfwine, son of Leofstan."[212]